Do you want Shards to be allowed?

[Odii Odsen]

What really is confusing to me is voting no shards in any PvP event at all.  Again, "yes" here does not mean all PvP unrestricted 100% allowing shards.  If some events allow them, some restrict, and many others still choose to ban them in many cases and a player doesn't like using them or whatever distaste they have for shards then they do not have to enter the events that allow them.

Right?

(I quote your statements Essence as they triggered my thoughts, above, not that I'm aiming it all at you...)

Example: I don't like to play shards in 95% of the PvP events. Isn't it risky for me to vote for "yes"? I mean, if the PvP Organizer see, that so many ppl prefer shards in PvP events, then they probably will allow shards (restricted or not) in almost every PvP event. So I rather would vote for "no", cause I can live with no shards in events than too many shard events.


Nymphs: Nymphs are rarer than shards, right! But they are not as powerful as shards. Tell me one deck with Nymphs, that can change the meta like only ONE shard card.

2. I can't tell you if I like shards in PvP events, cause it really depends on the PvP event type.
3. Shards in tourneys are cool- sometimes. It wouldn't be fun if we can play Shards every time in weekly tournaments. (I know it wouldn't be like that...) But one tourney out of 15 with shards is okay. When people ask for more, then rather no than yes.
4. In Trials it was fun, but I would like to see shards only in the final match and just with restrictions.

Higurashi defined all of these as "yes" votes. If you vote no, then you are ignoring the intent of the poll.

I know, that's the exact reason why I removed my votes for 2. and 3.
I doubt more and more whether the poll is useful. For example every PvP event should have their own poll then. Do I like shards in DoH? No. Do I like shards in TCBOO? Yes. In general I'd like to have no shards in about 95% of pvp events, BUT I have to vote yes. That's the logic of this poll how I understood it. Tell me if I am wrong.

I actually think you are right. However that only apply for 1 of the votes and not for bl,cl,war, tourneys and trials where it already been specified. Either way I think that if a big majority would vote no to shards in events I think most event would adjust to that and not allow shards. So in that particular pool I think another option should be added and some reformulated:

• Do you want shards in an majority of pvp events.
• Do you like to ban shards in an majority of pvp events.
• Do you want to ban shards from 90%+ of the pvp events.
• Do you want to play with shards in 90%+ of the pvp events.

Actually this also belongs to tourneys, too, but not as much as in PvP events.
BL and CL are partially affected, because say "yes" always meant unrestricted. As long as nobody can find a good solution to make clear and fair rules, my vote goes 100% for "no". I was trying to make some suggestions for a new rule for shards in leagues, but it wasn't good enough it seems.

Interesting. I don't understand why people don't want to try it on war at the least.

The real confusion is why people say that there can't be good PvP events with shards. At least IMHO.

The real confusion is why people vote "no" for BL and "yes" for CL.
@TribalTrouble: Because Shards aren't balanced. Powerful elements would get stronger. And people wanted to try it, but there wasn't enough people for trying it. So you see how popular this idea actually is.

Also I want to post this again and hope you can answer my question  :

I voted yes to CL, tournaments, and PvP events. On a limited basis. But a limited yes is still a yes, so...
Undecided for the others.

Why yes to CL and not to BL?

Why should there be a difference?

Yes to all except BL. BL having shards in use doesn't seem as newb-friendly to me. It increases the chance of people being afraid to enter because they are afraid of tons of rares being used against them. Plus some newbs blame losses on a certain shard or shards being used against them which just makes it less fun at times. I support winning just due to having a better deck overall but having things like 'the deck' or a SoB deck out in BL just doesn't seem fun to me.

That means, it's okay if anybody who has no upgraded shards and who anyway has only 3-5 upgraded decks, has to deal with it in CL?

[rob77dp]

Spoiler for Shards/PvP/Nymphs:

What really is confusing to me is voting no shards in any PvP event at all.  Again, "yes" here does not mean all PvP unrestricted 100% allowing shards.  If some events allow them, some restrict, and many others still choose to ban them in many cases and a player doesn't like using them or whatever distaste they have for shards then they do not have to enter the events that allow them.

Right?

(I quote your statements Essence as they triggered my thoughts, above, not that I'm aiming it all at you...)

Example: I don't like to play shards in 95% of the PvP events. Isn't it risky for me to vote for "yes"? I mean, if the PvP Organizer see, that so many ppl prefer shards in PvP events, then they probably will allow shards (restricted or not) in almost every PvP event. So I rather would vote for "no", cause I can live with no shards in events than too many shard events.
I feel quite confident that "yes" winning the votes would NOT result in suddenly ALL PvP events allowing ALL shards in unrestricted manner.  It seems that is really what people 'fear' about a "yes" vote and shards+PvP in general.


Nymphs: Nymphs are rarer than shards, right! But they are not as powerful as shards. Tell me one deck with Nymphs, that can change the meta like only ONE shard card.
UG/Blue Nymph spam - if I had 3 or 4 of these ladies I would run this deck quite a bit *sigh* at just x1 Blue
SiG - To function properly this does require UPGRADED meta and shards but it is a deck that loses a TON of feasibility without the Nymphs
Queen spam - unupgraded Queens save you the 1 quanta source - anyone having used a Queen spam before knows this (1 or 2 quanta mid-/late-game) often decides win or loss
Water/earth stall Nymphs - the Auburns in this deck are indispensable.  ONE Auburn can lock out SIX opposing creatures and with 8 HP is very hard to kill.  4 ATK for an Auburn is not too shabby either.
Light/earth stall Nymphs - refer above to Water/earch stall Nymphs
-- I'm sure there are more decks which are game-changers that cannot play without Nymphs being allowed but the above list should suffice --

Spoiler for Events:

2. I can't tell you if I like shards in PvP events, cause it really depends on the PvP event type.
3. Shards in tourneys are cool- sometimes. It wouldn't be fun if we can play Shards every time in weekly tournaments. (I know it wouldn't be like that...) But one tourney out of 15 with shards is okay. When people ask for more, then rather no than yes.
4. In Trials it was fun, but I would like to see shards only in the final match and just with restrictions.

Higurashi defined all of these as "yes" votes. If you vote no, then you are ignoring the intent of the poll.

I know, that's the exact reason why I removed my votes for 2. and 3.
I doubt more and more whether the poll is useful. For example every PvP event should have their own poll then. Do I like shards in DoH? No. Do I like shards in TCBOO? Yes. In general I'd like to have no shards in about 95% of pvp events, BUT I have to vote yes. That's the logic of this poll how I understood it. Tell me if I am wrong.

I actually think you are right. However that only apply for 1 of the votes and not for bl,cl,war, tourneys and trials where it already been specified. Either way I think that if a big majority would vote no to shards in events I think most event would adjust to that and not allow shards. So in that particular pool I think another option should be added and some reformulated:

• Do you want shards in an majority of pvp events.
• Do you like to ban shards in an majority of pvp events.
• Do you want to ban shards from 90%+ of the pvp events.
• Do you want to play with shards in 90%+ of the pvp events.

Actually this also belongs to tourneys, too, but not as much as in PvP events.
BL and CL are partially affected, because say "yes" always meant unrestricted It has been repeated several times that "yes" on this poll DOES NOT mean always unrestricted.. As long as nobody can find a good solution to make clear and fair rules, my vote goes 100% for "no".  Until votes end up "yes" in this non-always-unrestricted-type-of-yes poll, then proper attempts at "clear and fair rules" will never truly happen. *sigh again* I was trying to make some suggestions for a new rule for shards in leagues, but it wasn't good enough it seems.

** Pink coloring added here to clarify response intent. **

Spoiler for BL / CL:

Interesting. I don't understand why people don't want to try it on war at the least.

The real confusion is why people say that there can't be good PvP events with shards. At least IMHO.

The real confusion is why people vote "no" for BL and "yes" for CL.  This is perplexing to me too.  I can only think that BL in the sense of "beginner" league coming across still resulting in the idea most beginners do not even have shards to try.
@TribalTrouble: Because Shards aren't balanced. Powerful elements would get stronger. And people wanted to try it, but there wasn't enough people for trying it. So you see how popular this idea actually is.

Also I want to post this again and hope you can answer my question  :

I voted yes to CL, tournaments, and PvP events. On a limited basis. But a limited yes is still a yes, so...
Undecided for the others.

Why yes to CL and not to BL?

Why should there be a difference?  I can only think that BL in the sense of "beginner" league coming across still resulting in the idea most beginners do not even have shards to try.

Yes to all except BL. BL having shards in use doesn't seem as newb-friendly to me. It increases the chance of people being afraid to enter because they are afraid of tons of rares being used against them. Plus some newbs blame losses on a certain shard or shards being used against them which just makes it less fun at times. I support winning just due to having a better deck overall but having things like 'the deck' or a SoB deck out in BL just doesn't seem fun to me.

That means, it's okay if anybody who has no upgraded shards and who anyway has only 3-5 upgraded decks, has to deal with it in CL?

I have lost track of which player/member stated this, but it has been noted by at least one CL competitor that they were "in the prizes" for a CL completion with only a handful of upgraded decks.

I have added spoilers and additional breaks to some of your long post, Odii.  Hopefully this makes it more readable and ready for responses.



--Rob

[TheonlyrealBeef]

I have to ask some of the people here one thing: why are you advocating a rule change for a pvp category you will never participate in? I've both heard and read posts of people voting for categories they don't ever participate in. There's 60+ trials votes right now, if I don't see every trials swamped next time around I may have to hunt you down.

You're ruining the fun for those that do participate, regardless of which way the results are tilted in, and for what? Please, enlighten me. Why would you want to change whether shards are allowed in categories you won't be joining in regardless of outcome?

[Naesala]

I have to ask some of the people here one thing: why are you advocating a rule change for a pvp category you will never participate in? I've both heard and read posts of people voting for categories they don't ever participate in. There's 60+ trials votes right now, if I don't see every trials swamped next time around I may have to hunt you down.

You're ruining the fun for those that do participate, regardless of which way the results are tilted in, and for what? Please, enlighten me. Why would you want to change whether shards are allowed in categories you won't be joining in regardless of outcome?

I may be one of the ones you refer to, as I'm someone who doesn't participate in PvP often. My answers for why I vote and why I care vary a bit per section. For most of these sections I voted because even if I don't participate in all events under that label, removing shards would remove a major barrier I and other more new players have from participating.

As for Trials, which is the only event I don't see myself ever participating in, my vote, and perhaps the vote of others, was based on what we expect out of "Masters of the Elements". After all, Masters do get a spill over from that event into War (and the non pvp based Brawl, technically). And they are highly respected members, especially by newer players. I remember when I first joined the forums believing that the Masters had a lot more say in things than it turns out they do. Perhaps some think that to truely be a "Master" of an element, they must be able to deal with all cards in their element.

[Odii Odsen]

Spoiler for Shards/PvP/Nymphs:

What really is confusing to me is voting no shards in any PvP event at all.  Again, "yes" here does not mean all PvP unrestricted 100% allowing shards.  If some events allow them, some restrict, and many others still choose to ban them in many cases and a player doesn't like using them or whatever distaste they have for shards then they do not have to enter the events that allow them.

Right?

(I quote your statements Essence as they triggered my thoughts, above, not that I'm aiming it all at you...)

Example: I don't like to play shards in 95% of the PvP events. Isn't it risky for me to vote for "yes"? I mean, if the PvP Organizer see, that so many ppl prefer shards in PvP events, then they probably will allow shards (restricted or not) in almost every PvP event. So I rather would vote for "no", cause I can live with no shards in events than too many shard events.
I feel quite confident that "yes" winning the votes would NOT result in suddenly ALL PvP events allowing ALL shards in unrestricted manner.  It seems that is really what people 'fear' about a "yes" vote and shards+PvP in general.
Not ALL PvP events: I would regret a "yes" vote if 20% of the pvp events includes shards, even if only one shard is allowed. I just don't like it.


Nymphs: Nymphs are rarer than shards, right! But they are not as powerful as shards. Tell me one deck with Nymphs, that can change the meta like only ONE shard card.
UG/Blue Nymph spam - if I had 3 or 4 of these ladies I would run this deck quite a bit *sigh* at just x1 Blue
SiG - To function properly this does require UPGRADED meta and shards but it is a deck that loses a TON of feasibility without the Nymphs
Queen spam - unupgraded Queens save you the 1 quanta source - anyone having used a Queen spam before knows this (1 or 2 quanta mid-/late-game) often decides win or loss
Water/earth stall Nymphs - the Auburns in this deck are indispensable.  ONE Auburn can lock out SIX opposing creatures and with 8 HP is very hard to kill.  4 ATK for an Auburn is not too shabby either.
Light/earth stall Nymphs - refer above to Water/earch stall Nymphs
-- I'm sure there are more decks which are game-changers that cannot play without Nymphs being allowed but the above list should suffice --
I have 5 Blue Nymphs and the performance is worse than I thought. Especially unupgraded.
Queen Spam is a good alternative to other stall breaker but it also has so many counters.
Auburn Nymph is nice, but its cost is very high. Irdium Warden can be also effective in this deck or BB.

Spoiler for Events:

2. I can't tell you if I like shards in PvP events, cause it really depends on the PvP event type.
3. Shards in tourneys are cool- sometimes. It wouldn't be fun if we can play Shards every time in weekly tournaments. (I know it wouldn't be like that...) But one tourney out of 15 with shards is okay. When people ask for more, then rather no than yes.
4. In Trials it was fun, but I would like to see shards only in the final match and just with restrictions.

Higurashi defined all of these as "yes" votes. If you vote no, then you are ignoring the intent of the poll.

I know, that's the exact reason why I removed my votes for 2. and 3.
I doubt more and more whether the poll is useful. For example every PvP event should have their own poll then. Do I like shards in DoH? No. Do I like shards in TCBOO? Yes. In general I'd like to have no shards in about 95% of pvp events, BUT I have to vote yes. That's the logic of this poll how I understood it. Tell me if I am wrong.

I actually think you are right. However that only apply for 1 of the votes and not for bl,cl,war, tourneys and trials where it already been specified. Either way I think that if a big majority would vote no to shards in events I think most event would adjust to that and not allow shards. So in that particular pool I think another option should be added and some reformulated:

• Do you want shards in an majority of pvp events.
• Do you like to ban shards in an majority of pvp events.
• Do you want to ban shards from 90%+ of the pvp events.
• Do you want to play with shards in 90%+ of the pvp events.

Actually this also belongs to tourneys, too, but not as much as in PvP events.
BL and CL are partially affected, because say "yes" always meant unrestricted It has been repeated several times that "yes" on this poll DOES NOT mean always unrestricted.. rob, I know. But my vote always refers to the current situation. Shards in leagues are technically defined as unrestricted as long as they are allowed. Really, I don't care about theoretical options. I know that we can not set rules for restricted shards at the moment. TO's either will choose unrestricted or not. You don't have anything between it. If you have an idea, I would be so thankful! So it makes no sense to vote for "yes", if I know that would mean unrestricted. This is our current situation. Every time you agree for restricted shard games, is just because your opponent wants it, too. But if he would say, he wants unrestricted, you have to accept it. As long as nobody can find a good solution to make clear and fair rules, my vote goes 100% for "no".  Until votes end up "yes" in this non-always-unrestricted-type-of-yes poll, then proper attempts at "clear and fair rules" will never truly happen. *sigh again* Exactly, this is what I mean. We have no rule for shards in leagues which says: "You have to agree with your opponent, if you want play with shards, shardless or with restricted shard rules. For no agreement, the match is canceled." -> This would be a "yes", but it doesn't work. I already asked. That's the reason for "no". I was trying to make some suggestions for a new rule for shards in leagues, but it wasn't good enough it seems.

** Pink coloring added here to clarify response intent. **

Spoiler for BL / CL:

Interesting. I don't understand why people don't want to try it on war at the least.

The real confusion is why people say that there can't be good PvP events with shards. At least IMHO.

The real confusion is why people vote "no" for BL and "yes" for CL.  This is perplexing to me too.  I can only think that BL in the sense of "beginner" league coming across still resulting in the idea most beginners do not even have shards to try.
@TribalTrouble: Because Shards aren't balanced. Powerful elements would get stronger. And people wanted to try it, but there wasn't enough people for trying it. So you see how popular this idea actually is.

Also I want to post this again and hope you can answer my question  :

I voted yes to CL, tournaments, and PvP events. On a limited basis. But a limited yes is still a yes, so...
Undecided for the others.

Why yes to CL and not to BL?

Why should there be a difference?  I can only think that BL in the sense of "beginner" league coming across still resulting in the idea most beginners do not even have shards to try. I want to hear an answer from eaglgenes101.  I made the experience that some CLer don't have enough upped shards or shards in general. I was often asked for ban shards because of that.

Yes to all except BL. BL having shards in use doesn't seem as newb-friendly to me. It increases the chance of people being afraid to enter because they are afraid of tons of rares being used against them. Plus some newbs blame losses on a certain shard or shards being used against them which just makes it less fun at times. I support winning just due to having a better deck overall but having things like 'the deck' or a SoB deck out in BL just doesn't seem fun to me.

That means, it's okay if anybody who has no upgraded shards and who anyway has only 3-5 upgraded decks, has to deal with it in CL?

I have lost track of which player/member stated this, but it has been noted by at least one CL competitor that they were "in the prizes" for a CL completion with only a handful of upgraded decks. I don't get this part. Sorry

I have added spoilers and additional breaks to some of your long post, Odii.  Hopefully this makes it more readable and ready for responses.



--Rob

Me too

[rob77dp]

Spoiler for Shards/PvP/Nymphs:

What really is confusing to me is voting no shards in any PvP event at all.  Again, "yes" here does not mean all PvP unrestricted 100% allowing shards.  If some events allow them, some restrict, and many others still choose to ban them in many cases and a player doesn't like using them or whatever distaste they have for shards then they do not have to enter the events that allow them.

Right?

(I quote your statements Essence as they triggered my thoughts, above, not that I'm aiming it all at you...)

Example: I don't like to play shards in 95% of the PvP events. Isn't it risky for me to vote for "yes"? I mean, if the PvP Organizer see, that so many ppl prefer shards in PvP events, then they probably will allow shards (restricted or not) in almost every PvP event. So I rather would vote for "no", cause I can live with no shards in events than too many shard events.
I feel quite confident that "yes" winning the votes would NOT result in suddenly ALL PvP events allowing ALL shards in unrestricted manner.  It seems that is really what people 'fear' about a "yes" vote and shards+PvP in general.
Not ALL PvP events: I would regret a "yes" vote if 20% of the pvp events includes shards, even if only one shard is allowed. I just don't like it.


Nymphs: Nymphs are rarer than shards, right! But they are not as powerful as shards. Tell me one deck with Nymphs, that can change the meta like only ONE shard card.
UG/Blue Nymph spam - if I had 3 or 4 of these ladies I would run this deck quite a bit *sigh* at just x1 Blue
SiG - To function properly this does require UPGRADED meta and shards but it is a deck that loses a TON of feasibility without the Nymphs
Queen spam - unupgraded Queens save you the 1 quanta source - anyone having used a Queen spam before knows this (1 or 2 quanta mid-/late-game) often decides win or loss
Water/earth stall Nymphs - the Auburns in this deck are indispensable.  ONE Auburn can lock out SIX opposing creatures and with 8 HP is very hard to kill.  4 ATK for an Auburn is not too shabby either.
Light/earth stall Nymphs - refer above to Water/earch stall Nymphs
-- I'm sure there are more decks which are game-changers that cannot play without Nymphs being allowed but the above list should suffice --
I have 5 Blue Nymphs and the performance is worse than I thought. Especially unupgraded.
Queen Spam is a good alternative to other stall breaker but it also has so many counters.
Auburn Nymph is nice, but its cost is very high. Irdium Warden can be also effective in this deck or BB.

Spoiler for Events:

2. I can't tell you if I like shards in PvP events, cause it really depends on the PvP event type.
3. Shards in tourneys are cool- sometimes. It wouldn't be fun if we can play Shards every time in weekly tournaments. (I know it wouldn't be like that...) But one tourney out of 15 with shards is okay. When people ask for more, then rather no than yes.
4. In Trials it was fun, but I would like to see shards only in the final match and just with restrictions.

Higurashi defined all of these as "yes" votes. If you vote no, then you are ignoring the intent of the poll.

I know, that's the exact reason why I removed my votes for 2. and 3.
I doubt more and more whether the poll is useful. For example every PvP event should have their own poll then. Do I like shards in DoH? No. Do I like shards in TCBOO? Yes. In general I'd like to have no shards in about 95% of pvp events, BUT I have to vote yes. That's the logic of this poll how I understood it. Tell me if I am wrong.

I actually think you are right. However that only apply for 1 of the votes and not for bl,cl,war, tourneys and trials where it already been specified. Either way I think that if a big majority would vote no to shards in events I think most event would adjust to that and not allow shards. So in that particular pool I think another option should be added and some reformulated:

• Do you want shards in an majority of pvp events.
• Do you like to ban shards in an majority of pvp events.
• Do you want to ban shards from 90%+ of the pvp events.
• Do you want to play with shards in 90%+ of the pvp events.

Actually this also belongs to tourneys, too, but not as much as in PvP events.
BL and CL are partially affected, because say "yes" always meant unrestricted It has been repeated several times that "yes" on this poll DOES NOT mean always unrestricted.. rob, I know. But my vote always refers to the current situation. Shards in leagues are technically defined as unrestricted as long as they are allowed. Really, I don't care about theoretical options. I know that we can not set rules for restricted shards at the moment. TO's either will choose unrestricted or not. You don't have anything between it. If you have an idea, I would be so thankful! So it makes no sense to vote for "yes", if I know that would mean unrestricted. This is our current situation. Every time you agree for restricted shard games, is just because your opponent wants it, too. But if he would say, he wants unrestricted, you have to accept it. As long as nobody can find a good solution to make clear and fair rules, my vote goes 100% for "no".  Until votes end up "yes" in this non-always-unrestricted-type-of-yes poll, then proper attempts at "clear and fair rules" will never truly happen. *sigh again* Exactly, this is what I mean. We have no rule for shards in leagues which says: "You have to agree with your opponent, if you want play with shards, shardless or with restricted shard rules. For no agreement, the match is canceled." -> This would be a "yes", but it doesn't work. I already asked. That's the reason for "no". I was trying to make some suggestions for a new rule for shards in leagues, but it wasn't good enough it seems.

** Pink coloring added here to clarify response intent. **

*HINT:  My latest addition is in this spoiler*

Spoiler for BL / CL:

Interesting. I don't understand why people don't want to try it on war at the least.

The real confusion is why people say that there can't be good PvP events with shards. At least IMHO.

The real confusion is why people vote "no" for BL and "yes" for CL.  This is perplexing to me too.  I can only think that BL in the sense of "beginner" league coming across still resulting in the idea most beginners do not even have shards to try.
@TribalTrouble: Because Shards aren't balanced. Powerful elements would get stronger. And people wanted to try it, but there wasn't enough people for trying it. So you see how popular this idea actually is.

Also I want to post this again and hope you can answer my question  :

I voted yes to CL, tournaments, and PvP events. On a limited basis. But a limited yes is still a yes, so...
Undecided for the others.

Why yes to CL and not to BL?

Why should there be a difference?  I can only think that BL in the sense of "beginner" league coming across still resulting in the idea most beginners do not even have shards to try. I want to hear an answer from eaglgenes101.  I made the experience that some CLer don't have enough upped shards or shards in general. I was often asked for ban shards because of that.

Yes to all except BL. BL having shards in use doesn't seem as newb-friendly to me. It increases the chance of people being afraid to enter because they are afraid of tons of rares being used against them. Plus some newbs blame losses on a certain shard or shards being used against them which just makes it less fun at times. I support winning just due to having a better deck overall but having things like 'the deck' or a SoB deck out in BL just doesn't seem fun to me.

That means, it's okay if anybody who has no upgraded shards and who anyway has only 3-5 upgraded decks, has to deal with it in CL?

I have lost track of which player/member stated this, but it has been noted by at least one CL competitor that they were "in the prizes" for a CL completion with only a handful of upgraded decks. I don't get this part. Sorry
Maybe Spike?  A prior CL participant, whom finished high enough to win prizes, competed successfully with only a handful of upgraded decks.

I have added spoilers and additional breaks to some of your long post, Odii.  Hopefully this makes it more readable and ready for responses.



--Rob

Me too

Well, between us I think we are finally fully understanding each other with my addition above in Lime GREEN bold.

[TribalTrouble]

I have to ask some of the people here one thing: why are you advocating a rule change for a pvp category you will never participate in? I've both heard and read posts of people voting for categories they don't ever participate in. There's 60+ trials votes right now, if I don't see every trials swamped next time around I may have to hunt you down.

You're ruining the fun for those that do participate, regardless of which way the results are tilted in, and for what? Please, enlighten me. Why would you want to change whether shards are allowed in categories you won't be joining in regardless of outcome?

Because it's still on my to-do list...   

Honestly, I just don't always have the time necessary and some times life has an effect on my internet connection, as was the case when I got hit by a big storm during my attempt at trials and didn't have the ability to even tell anyone I didn't have any internet.

[Essence]

I have to ask some of the people here one thing: why are you advocating a rule change for a pvp category you will never participate in?

Because I feel like I have a pretty decent understanding of what the categories mean, and I have a pretty firm opinion of what they should mean, so I'm expressing my opinion. The truth is, I don't have time to participate in PVP events. I haven't since the Second War. But that doesn't mean that I'm not fairly firm in my conviction that BL should be as newb-friendly as possible, where as War and Trials should be no-holds-barred, anything-goes slaughterfests.

[dragtom]

in addition:
either not participating because of the current shard rules,

or simply not having time to participate,
which could change in the future (and it'd be nice if the rules were to your liking by then )

[Vangelios]

or just be live to change the choices

[TribalTrouble]

I have to ask some of the people here one thing: why are you advocating a rule change for a pvp category you will never participate in?

Because I feel like I have a pretty decent understanding of what the categories mean, and I have a pretty firm opinion of what they should mean, so I'm expressing my opinion. The truth is, I don't have time to participate in PVP events. I haven't since the Second War. But that doesn't mean that I'm not fairly firm in my conviction that BL should be as newb-friendly as possible, where as War and Trials should be no-holds-barred, anything-goes slaughterfests.

Very much this. It is like asking a group of single men and women why they are advocating for a law banning child labor when they don't have children. It's because they have an opinion and feel strongly about their opinion. They don't have to know the ins and outs as long as they at least have a general idea of what's really going on. They also may have relations with those that DO have children and/or with those that DO own factories where child labor is the norm. Both sides most likely have strong opinions about the subject that they share with those that may not even be directly effected by the advocated law being passed.

I've read the rules for almost every annual/monthly PvP Event at least a few times. I don't participate in many of them, but I know those that do and I often read about the results of the matches and the match descriptions and the decks used (whenever they are posted).

I know what has gone wrong in some PvP Events and what has gone right. I know of Fire's reign of War in the past and I know of the route past masters took to claim their titles. I understand how hard one has to think to prepare adequate decks for each event, for wars, for trials, etc. and I know that many tears have been shed in the process.

I don't claim to follow every single event or to follow any of them extremely actively but I have gotten to understand what they are about and what can make one or brake one for any one member or group of members. I also have heard opinions from regular members of both Kongregate and the official chat.

I feel very well informed, and see no reason that I should not use my right to express my opinion in the forms of voting and discussing these events that one could argue to be the heart of this community.

[UndeadSpider1990]

I don't know what BL or CL is.

If I had to vote on tournaments, I'd say yes, but I'm not voting because I think they should be allowed at the discretion of organizers for individual tournaments — the same way Upgraded cards are or are not allowed. For that matter, I think Nymphs should share that status: not allowed as a rule, but allowed in certain tournaments.